Maschine is obv very different from Push in both function and concept - Maschine being mostly about audio arranging etc and Push being about Midi performance and arrangement. The way I see it is basically: Push for midi, Maschine for audio. I simply prefer to handle my audio with a mouse which is why I'm going Push.

Nope. Maschine is just as much about midi as it is about audio. The main difference is that Maschine feels more like you're using a hardware instrument since it pretty much has total control over its software from its hardware, without needing to touch the mouse or look at the computer screen, and without any mapping or any setup/hacks/workarounds beforehand.

panten wrote:

It seems to me that one of the Main advantages of using Maschine is that it will enable you to sample and slice to pads. This is the big one that will decide whether I go Maschine or Push tbh as I want to be able to easily sample (from any source) perform, re-sample/mangle and so on using only the controller. How extensively you'll be able to do your initial sound design from Push remains to be seen.

We already know this about Push in comparison to Maschine:- you won't be able to do things like sample chopping or waveform editing from the Push controller. - you won't be able to add/remove warp markers from Push. - you can't slice to Drum Racks from the Push controller- you can't load samples/clips in Live's browser from Push- you can't duplicate pads from Push- Push will only be able to edit start/end points for audio clips that has already been warped, so you won't be able to do things like just loading an unwarped clip and jumping to different parts of the clip using the Push encoder: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186306- Push doesn't automap to plugins without saving them in racks first - Push can't do step automation (aka step parameter locks/p-locks)- Push will still force you to click around with a mouse for a lot of things.

The only real difference is that the transport controls of Maschine don't work in the plug-in (for obvious reasons)

Not true. Maschine's transport controls do work while Maschine is used as a plugin (this was added in the 1.8 update).

TomViolenz wrote:

I think what makes the work in the stand alone version sometimes preferable is the added stability (less things running at the same time) and better resource allocation.(I have a few Maschine sessions that run fine in stand-alone that won't even open in Live (Memory).

I have found this to be true as well, even as Maschine doesn't have multicore support, because I run it in 64bit. The same exact project with identical plugins will struggle in Live while running smooth in Maschine standalone. The difference seems to have a lot to do with the fact that Live is not officially 64bit yet.

panten wrote:

If I were to buy Maschine I would be primarily using it as a plugin for Live. I realise that a lot of people love using it standalone as a groovebox sketchpad but it's not the reason I would be buying it so it will be, for me, an nice side effect.

Standalone use doesn't make it a "sketchpad". It's really not an either/or thing. A lot of Maschine users do prefer to use it in standalone mode but many of them still export to a DAW to mix or load it as a plugin to finish it up in a DAW after doing the bulk of the production in Maschine standalone. Maschine's strength is clearly in the fast hands-on workflow during the actual production stage.

panten wrote:

Are you able to set up complex chains and smart controls using the Maschine controller at all?

Yes. Audio signal routing in Maschine is already very flexible. You get 4 module (device) slots per pad (track/sound) and 4 per group to add fx. Audio signal from each module slot moves from left to right. You can chain the audio signal from a pad to another pad to another to another... etc. So you could have just one instrument loaded but have it run through all other pads and groups and the master and have the possibilities of 547 (I think...) FX slots. Though that's probably going a bit over the top, even for extreme sound design. Maschine also has a macro feature with 8 macros per group. Any knob from any plug in parameter on the group can be assigned to one of the macro knobs for real time tweaking.

why wait for Push to maybe get the fixes you want to see eventually for the same price as Maschine which does all of that now?? Its like marrying the side chick because she has potential to being amazing when your girlfriend is already perfect.

After all of the feedback on this topic I decided to put use to Maschine Mk2 last night and have to admit you guys are right Maschine's hands on control especially when it comes to ease of use when sampling and chopping is probably the best on the market, Push will have some work to do in terms of this.....Live is extremely powerful and with Push it may be the best solution for a live user, just all depends on how you like your workflow....Since were on this topic are there any Akai MPC Renaissance users out there????

These are all things to consider. I noticed on the Questions & Answers thread their response is that 'your wish is noted', hopefully these notes don't just get put in a warehouse somewhere.

RE: -

humnumb wrote:

Push doesn't automap to plugins without saving them in racks first

As I stated before this doesn't bother me as you would only need to do this once or twice, or create a bunch of chains and a few smart knobs. This should actually be marked as a plus point I think. Better to have more creative use of your knobs than a big list of individual parameters, speaking personally.

I can live without step automation.

One thing I have noticed from watching a lot of Maschine videos is that there seems to be a ton of button combinations to get it to do what you want. I'm guessing that becomes muscle memory after a while but it seems daunting viewing it as an outsider. Push this button and this then this, and move this encoder to access your vst parameter #23. It's reminding me of using this old clunky MPD32.

I would really love to see the priority list of Push features. If Ableton were smart they'd do a thorough poll.

delicioso: I have to respectfully disagree. I mentioned that Maschine standalone was more of a sketchbook because that's how I would use it. To sketch out an initial idea then either transfer that to Live and compose it in arrange view. It seems hard to get away from that 4x4 beat when using scenes similar to session view I could imagine.

Let's talk about the positive points of Push.

- I do like the 8x8 grid layout. I was a bit concerned about how tight it would feel to play them but that Jeremy Ellis video gives me the impression that they're really comfortable to play. He was always talking about having a smaller layout though. I think I would really enjoy playing instruments on that layout as I've never really felt that comfortable on a keyboard.- Also the touch strip looks great, I can see that being really useful for some live glitching etc.- Having more dedicated buttons will negate the use of so many button combination presses which, while I don't loathe, I don't find much fun to remember. I'm a 3d Artist by profession and I have no more space in my brain for keyboard shortcuts

What do you guys think are the advantages of using Push over Maschine? humnumb?

One thing I have noticed from watching a lot of Maschine videos is that there seems to be a ton of button combinations to get it to do what you want. I'm guessing that becomes muscle memory after a while but it seems daunting viewing it as an outsider. Push this button and this then this, and move this encoder to access your vst parameter #23. It's reminding me of using this old clunky MPD32.

It's very simple and intuitive once you actually use it. Fastest workflow I've found anywhere, hands down. There is something to be said about doing things fast from muscle memory by pushing tactile buttons that makes Maschine more of an instrument imho, but you don't actually have to remember button presses because every function, including the ones you have to hold the Shift button for, is either labeled on the hardware itself or on its dual LCD displays. Tutorial videos can sometimes give the wrong impression because they tend to unnecessarily hold your hand very slowly through simple obvious things in order to cater to total noobs who needs everything spelt out for them.

panten wrote:

It seems hard to get away from that 4x4 beat when using scenes similar to session view I could imagine.

Nope. You can easily change the length of the pattern as well as the the time signature.

I thinks this is what it will all come down to. If they keep listening to their users, it will definitely become a magnificent device!

It already is a magnificent device. The problem is that the info that most have on it right now is limited and is leading to incorrect conclusions. For example, you mentioned that clip parameters didn’t appear to be accessible, but they are. You also mentioned that entering melodies via the step-sequencer wasn’t possible, but it is (a single sample/sound can easily be assigned across the keyrange in a Drum Rack).

At the moment, the only way to really learn about Push is to read the section on it in Live 9’s manual and, of course, have a good understanding of how Live itself works. As an example of what I mean on that last point, Live’s Session View is essentially a sampler with all sorts of neat tricks (follow actions, realtime quantization, envelopes per clip, etc). Contrary to what many are saying in this thread, you can easily record audio into a clip, duplicate it a bunch of times, adjust the start/end times of the duplicates and jam away…all without touching a mouse from Push.

Quote:

If they treat it like the APC 40 and leave it in the hand of the 3rd parties and max patchers only, it will probably still stay around and be bought for a long time(like the APC40), but a great opportunity will be wasted.

First of all, the APC40 benefits from improvements/additions to Live. For example, the newly added ability to record automation in clips greatly benefits the APC40. Secondly, the fact that the APC40 (and any other controller for that matter) can be extended via hooks that Ableton put in place specifically for that purpose is a great thing…a really great thing. In fact, Maschine itself has benefited from that since day one. One of the first Maschine-related videos NI posted was showing it controlling Live via a MIDI Remote Script. That certainly helped push some Maschines out the door and a newer example of that is primarily why this thread was posted in the first place.

Using MIDI Remote Scripts and/or M4L to extend the capabilities of a controller like Push or Maschine or the APC40 is not a workaround or hack like many have suggested. These are parts of Live intended to be used for this exact purpose.

Personally, I don’t see Push/Live being very comparable at all to Maschine. Although you might have to do a few things with a mouse or use your ears, there is really nothing that Maschine can do that Live can’t. There is a very long laundry list of things that Live can do that Maschine can’t. Push merely offers a new means of controlling Live. It’s certainly not the only option or even a good option. It all depends on you and your needs and Live caters to a much wider range of needs than Maschine does.